Post #3984696

2026-07-13 12:52 UTC

For the most part, I am an AI sceptic. My firm has had access to and beta tested every Google AI model since before the AI had a name (yes, well before Bard). We also have access to ChatGPT, Claude and locally run models on dedicated hardware. I’ll save you the suspense, at the moment it’s all mostly trash. Barely a proof of concept. Definitely not production ready, but there are a few exceptions I, personally, have found. Gemini Pro is excellent at identifying and diagnosing sick garden plants if you take and upload a photos of the plants. Unfortunately, it still cannot do simple arithmetic. A simple SUM that any spreadsheet does automatically by just highlighting the cells, and somehow it was still off by one. For software dev, the only one product we have found to be useful is Claude, BUT it really depends on the model. Haiku is a joke. Sonnet is not bad, if not bad is ~50% accuracy. Opus is fairly descent at building scaffolding that you can then correct and complete, but don’t expect efficient code. The only model we have ever tested that can deliver ALMOST fully functional code, reliably diagnose errors, and review code is Mythos/Fable. Genuinely not absolute shite, BUT that shit is extremely slow and outrageously expensive. I seriously doubt that your company is forking out the money for Claude Fable as their default model, and if they are, they must not care about ever making a profit.

Replies (3)

@HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 2026-07-14 04:35

For software dev, the only one product we have found to be useful is Claude, BUT it really depends on the model. Haiku is a joke. Sonnet is not bad, if not bad is ~50% accuracy. Lets assume you have to cross a desert by foot. You can have either a human guide or a map, which is cheaper. The guide can tell points where you will find water that you need in order to survive. The map has much more information but it will e bull half of the time. Which would you chose? What would a company chose? Why?

Open ##3984695
@Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2026-07-14 06:21

likely common house plants have so many pictures online already it would be easy to identify with a AI, especially people also post disease plants to idenfy it too. they dont do that well with animals/pests though, since theres alot of look alike species.

Open ##3997360
@EliteCloneMike@lemmy.zip 2026-07-13 14:04

For the plant identification, I would say that these detection methods are heavily biased towards the data in the training sets. Sure, it’s probably good at commonly occurring plant symptoms, but would be unable to assess rare symptoms with any real accuracy. Same goes for diseases with similar symptoms. I think it if fine for entertainment or research purposes, but should not be used for real world issues. AI should not be used to accuse people of crime they didn’t commit and have that be taken as evidence. Like how Google scans all personal photos and has falsely reported people of heinous crimes. Sure they catch some bad actors, but I doubt they are doing better than if they were to randomly report people’s accounts. And there is never a human in the loop to correct for false positives.

Open ##3997516